Telepeer

Sara Hernandez, SD-26 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

May 6, 2026

Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.

Name: Sara Hernandez

Current job title: Affordable Housing Advocate

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees

City where you reside: Eagle Rock

Campaign website or social media: sarahernandez.com

Do you believe balancing the state budget should rely more on spending cuts, new revenue streams or a combination? Tell us how you would propose tackling California’s projected budget deficit. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I believe California should address budget deficits with a combination of disciplined spending decisions and fairer, more stable revenue—not across-the-board cuts that weaken core services or broad tax hikes on working families. The 2026-27 Governor’s Budget projects roughly a $3 billion deficit, while the Legislative Analyst’s Office has warned that California faces multiyear structural deficits, with estimates ranging from $20 billion to $35 billion annually in the out-years.

My approach would start with three steps. First, protect the basics: public education, public safety, healthcare, and housing.

Second, look hard at lower-priority spending, delays of non-urgent commitments, and efficiencies that do not cut frontline capacity.

Third, raise fair revenue by closing corporate loopholes and improving compliance before shifting costs onto ordinary Californians. The LAO has also cautioned that recent budgets have relied heavily on reserves and borrowing, which is not a sustainable long-term strategy.

I would not support balancing the budget by making life more expensive for working families or by cutting the services they rely on most. California needs honest budgeting, stronger reserves in good years, and a more durable fiscal structure that can weather volatility without lurching from crisis to crisis. That means making targeted reductions where appropriate, but pairing them with fair revenue and long-term planning.

For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

A non-starter for me is balancing the budget by cutting the basic pillars that keep families stable: public education, healthcare, housing and homelessness prevention, and core public safety services.

I say that because those are not optional programs in people’s lives. When you cut K-12 schools, community colleges, Medi-Cal, mental health care, rental assistance, or victim and emergency services, the damage doesn’t stay on a spreadsheet. It shows up in crowded classrooms, untreated illness, more people falling into homelessness, longer emergency response times, and families pushed further into crisis. In the end, those cuts usually cost us more.

I also believe it would be a mistake to balance the budget on the backs of public workers through furloughs or deep staffing cuts. California depends on teachers, nurses, social workers, public safety professionals, and the county and state employees who make government function every day.

That does not mean every dollar is untouchable. I support reviewing lower-priority spending, delaying non-urgent expansions, improving efficiency, and closing loopholes before cutting essential services. But if a budget proposal makes it harder for children to learn, families to get care, people to stay housed, or communities to stay safe, that is where I draw the line.

What are the top three most pressing issues facing the state, and what would you propose, as a state legislator, to address them? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

1. Housing We Can Afford: As a housing attorney, I’ve seen how well-intentioned policies often create barriers that delay or block the housing our communities desperately need. I will fight to increase multifamily housing near transit and jobs, streamline approvals, and protect tenants with strong eviction and rent control laws. I’ll also push for innovative, affordable housing solutions like community land trusts and using public land to create permanently affordable homes. The housing crisis is a result of policy choices – we must choose differently.

2. World-Class Public Transit and Mobility: Mobility is a civil rights issue – access to jobs, education, and opportunity depends on it. I’ll work to make our public transit safer, cleaner, and more reliable by expanding bus and rail lines, adding protected bike lanes, and improving transit stops. This includes championing a universal TAP card, better frequency, and enhanced amenities to help people get around efficiently and reduce pollution.

3. Debt-Free Higher Education and Good-Paying Jobs: Education transformed my life, but the burden of student debt is unsustainable. I’ll expand access to community colleges and bachelor’s degrees in high-demand fields like nursing and cybersecurity, making them accessible to lower-income students. I’ll also promote union apprenticeships and workforce training, linking education directly to good-paying jobs that build our economy and help address critical shortages – including in construction trades essential to solving the housing crisis.

However, I’m also deeply passionate and committed to advancing environmental justice, protecting immigrant communities, defending reproductive freedom and gender equity, supporting the preservation of film and TV jobs in Los Angeles, and ensuring universal childcare for all families.

These priorities reflect a comprehensive vision for building stronger, more equitable communities in our district and across California

What specific policy would you champion in the statehouse to improve the cost of living for residents? Would you see this having an immediate impact on Californians or would it take some time? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

The single most important policy I would champion to improve the cost of living is building more housing, faster, especially affordable and workforce housing near jobs and transit.

Housing is the highest cost most families face, and it is the main driver of why so many Californians feel like they’re falling behind. Even when wages go up, rent and home prices often rise faster. That is why I would focus on statewide housing reform that speeds up permitting, streamlines approvals for affordable and mixed-income housing, enforces state housing laws, and makes it easier to build duplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and starter condos in the places people actually want and need to live.

I would also fight for more housing for working families — teachers, nurses, firefighters, and young professionals — through targeted state investments, tax credits, and public-private partnerships.

This would not solve the problem overnight, but some impacts could be felt relatively quickly. Streamlining approvals and removing unnecessary barriers can get projects moving faster, help stabilize rents over time, and send a signal that California is serious about lowering housing costs. The full benefits would take time, because we need to build at scale, but unless we address housing supply and affordability head-on, every other cost-of-living conversation will be incomplete.

If we want California to be affordable again, we have to make it possible for people to live near work, school, and opportunity.

There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

California should do more to protect residents from an indiscriminate federal immigration crackdown, while staying within the limits of state law. I support defending and fully implementing SB 54, which limits the use of state and local resources for federal immigration enforcement, and I support the Attorney General’s updated guidance to schools, libraries, health facilities, and courts so families can safely access essential services without fear.

I do not believe California should work “hand-in-hand” with the federal government on broad civil immigration enforcement. The state’s role is different: protect public safety, protect constitutional rights, and make sure our schools, hospitals, and courts are not turned into extensions of ICE. That also means stronger safeguards around data-sharing, more legal support for immigrants, and clear rules so local agencies know where cooperation ends. California’s Attorney General has repeatedly defended immigrant rights and SB 54, and that is the right posture.

As a state legislator, my role would be to strengthen those protections, fund language access and legal services, and make sure public institutions remain safe and accessible. I would also support practical anti-impersonation and transparency measures, especially given the rise in fake ICE incidents and the fear caused by masked enforcement activity during the current crackdown.

Health care costs — like in many other areas — are continuing to rise. What policies, specifically, would you support or like to champion that could lower premiums or out-of-pocket expenses? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I would focus on three areas: bringing down prescription drug costs, expanding affordability protections, and reducing the underlying cost of care.

First, I support giving California more leverage to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, increasing transparency around pharmaceutical pricing, and capping out-of-pocket costs for essential medications like insulin. No one should have to skip medicine because they cannot afford it.

Second, I would work to strengthen affordability protections in the insurance market. That means expanding premium assistance for low- and middle-income families, reducing the burden of deductibles and co-pays, and improving access to preventive and primary care so people are not pushed into expensive emergency treatment. I also support raising the Medi-Cal Share of Cost threshold so seniors and people with disabilities are not forced into poverty to qualify for care.

Third, we need to lower the underlying cost of care by investing more in community clinics, mental health care, and preventive services, especially in underserved communities. When people can get care early and close to home, costs go down and outcomes improve. I also support stronger oversight of hospital consolidation and anti-competitive behavior that drives prices up for patients and families.

For me, healthcare affordability means making sure families can actually use the coverage they have—not just carry an insurance card while avoiding care because of the bill.

Would you support expanding state health care programs to ensure more residents — including those who are not citizens — are covered? How would you propose the state fund such an expansion? Or, how would you propose the people who cannot afford health care still get the necessary care they need without expanding state programs? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes — I support expanding health care coverage so more Californians, including undocumented residents, can get the care they need. In a state as wealthy as California, immigration status should not determine whether someone can see a doctor, fill a prescription, or get preventive care. Leaving people uninsured does not save money in the long run — it shifts costs into emergency rooms, worsens health outcomes, and drives up uncompensated care for everyone.

That said, any expansion has to be done responsibly. My first priority would be protecting and fully funding the coverage we already provide, then expanding access in a way that is fiscally sustainable. I would look to a combination of strategies: closing corporate tax loopholes, maximizing federal funds and waivers wherever possible, negotiating lower prescription drug costs, and investing in primary and preventive care that reduces expensive crisis care later.

I also support strengthening community clinics, language access, and culturally competent care so coverage translates into actual access. For people who still fall through the cracks, California should expand sliding-scale and safety-net care, not leave them to fend for themselves. My goal is practical and humane: more coverage, lower long-term costs, and a healthcare system that treats people early, fairly, and with dignity.

As part of combating homelessness, elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place. What policies or programs should the state adopt to make housing more affordable for renters and homeowners? What do you propose the state do to incentivize housing development and expedite such projects? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes. Housing is at the heart of nearly every challenge we face — from homelessness to economic mobility to public safety. If we are serious about preventing homelessness, California has to both make housing more affordable now and build a lot more of it, much faster.

For renters and homeowners, I would support stronger homelessness prevention tools like rental assistance, legal aid, and targeted relief for households at risk of eviction or foreclosure. But the biggest long-term fix is increasing supply. I support statewide CEQA and permitting reform, faster inspections and approvals, and more by-right zoning for multifamily housing near jobs and transit — especially on underused commercial corridors. We also need to hold cities and counties accountable for complying with state housing laws.

I would also fight to expand workforce housing for teachers, firefighters, nurses, and young professionals through state investment, tax credits, bond funding, and public-private partnerships. We should make it easier to build duplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and other “missing middle” housing that add homes without displacing existing communities.

Finally, we need to expand homeownership opportunities. Condominiums have historically been one of the most affordable paths into ownership, but state laws often make them hard to finance and build. I would work to reform those barriers so more renters can become homeowners and build generational wealth.

Los Angeles is at a tipping point. We cannot keep doing more of the same.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2023 authorizing state energy regulators to penalize oil companies making excessive profits. But the California Energy Commission put off imposing the penalties last year after two oil refineries, which represent nearly a fifth of California’s refining capacity, said they would shut down operations. Those announcements prompted many to be concerned about soaring gas prices. What do you think of the commission’s decision? And how would you, as a state legislator, propose balancing California’s climate goals with protecting consumers from high gas prices at the pump? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I understand why the Commission was cautious. When two refineries that account for a meaningful share of California’s refining capacity announce closures, regulators have to take seriously the risk of supply disruptions and price spikes that hit working families hardest. But caution cannot become inaction. Californians deserve both strong oversight of excessive refinery profits and a serious plan to manage the transition away from fossil fuels responsibly.

As a legislator, I would focus on two tracks at once. First, protect consumers in the near term with stronger transparency around refinery outages and maintenance, tighter oversight against market manipulation, and tools to manage supply shocks so families are not blindsided at the pump. We should not allow companies to use the threat of closures to avoid accountability.

Second, the long-term way to protect consumers is to reduce dependence on gasoline altogether. That means investing more aggressively in reliable public transit, cleaner freight, EV charging, and affordable alternatives for low- and middle-income drivers. It also means sequencing refinery transition policy carefully so we do not create avoidable price spikes while still meeting our climate and public health goals.

In short, I support holding oil companies accountable, but California also needs a realistic transition plan that protects consumers, workers, and frontline communities at the same time.

In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36 to increase penalties for certain drug and retail theft crimes and make available a drug treatment option for some who plead guilty to felony drug possession. Would you, as a legislator, demand that more funding for behavioral health treatments be included in the budget? How would you ensure that money is used properly? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes. If Proposition 36 is going to work as voters intended, the state has to put real money behind treatment—not just tougher penalties. California has already begun doing that: DHCS launched a Proposition 36 initiative with $50 million in one-time county funding for planning, capacity building, and treatment services, and later state actions added more support.

As a legislator, I would push for additional behavioral health funding in the budget, especially for counties that need treatment slots, assessment capacity, and community-based recovery services to implement the law responsibly. But funding alone is not enough. I would tie those dollars to clear expectations: evidence-based treatment, timely access, licensed providers, and transparent reporting on outcomes such as treatment completion, recidivism, overdose reduction, and reentry success.

Recent calls for more Prop 36 funding have rightly emphasized that treatment must be properly regulated and evidence-based.

To make sure the money is used properly, I would support strong state oversight, regular county reporting, independent audits where needed, and public dashboards so taxpayers can see what is working. The goal should be accountability in both directions: people should be held responsible for serious conduct, and government should be held responsible for delivering the treatment and recovery services it promises.

What role should the state play in ensuring hospitals and doctors are providing gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ residents? Similarly, what role do you believe the state could play should other states adopt policies that restrict that care? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes. The state has a responsibility to ensure that LGBTQ+ Californians can access medically necessary, evidence-based care without discrimination, intimidation, or political interference. In California, that means enforcing existing protections for patients and providers, making sure health plans cover gender-affirming care as required, and ensuring hospitals, clinics, and insurers are not creating barriers through denials, delays, or unequal treatment. California has already established strong legal protections, and I would work to defend and strengthen them.

If other states continue restricting this care, California should remain a refuge. I support protecting providers and patients from out-of-state investigations or penalties when the care is legal here, and California has already moved in that direction with shield laws and additional proposals to strengthen those safeguards.

Beyond legal protections, the state should also expand practical access: more culturally competent providers, stronger privacy protections for health data, and clear guidance so patients know their rights. For me, this is about health care, dignity, and basic freedom. Politicians should not be standing between people and the care their doctors determine they need.

Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I do think the state has a role to play — especially when platforms are intentionally designed in ways that can harm young people’s mental health, safety, and development. Parents and families need support, but this cannot be left entirely to them when billion-dollar companies are using addictive design features, opaque algorithms, and weak safety protections.

That said, I would be cautious about a blanket age ban that is difficult to enforce, raises privacy concerns, or cuts young people off from beneficial online communities and information. My approach would focus on strong safeguards rather than simple prohibition.

As a state lawmaker, I would support: requiring stronger default privacy settings for minors; limits on addictive design features like endless scroll, autoplay, and late-night push notifications; greater transparency around recommendation algorithms; stronger protections against harassment, exploitation, and self-harm content; and easy-to-use parental tools that do not compromise young people’s privacy or safety. I also support requiring platforms to share more data with independent researchers so policymakers can better understand impacts on youth mental health.

At the same time, we need more investment in school-based mental health services, digital literacy, and parent education.

Social media is not the only factor affecting youth well-being, but it is one the state can regulate responsibly. My goal would be to protect children while respecting free expression, privacy, and the reality that technology is now part of everyday life.

Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

California should lead on AI the same way it has led on other transformative technologies: encourage innovation, set clear rules, and protect workers and consumers. The good news is California is already moving in that direction. The state has required an inventory of high-risk automated decision systems used by agencies, enacted transparency rules for AI-generated content and training data, and clarified that existing civil rights, consumer protection, and competition laws apply to AI.

My approach would have three parts. First, protect people from harm. I support guardrails on AI in consequential decisions like hiring, lending, housing, healthcare, and education, with bias testing, transparency, and accountability when systems discriminate or cause harm. California’s recent work on employment-related automated decision systems points in the right direction.

Second, protect workers. AI should augment work, not simply become a tool to deskill jobs or cut people out of the economy. I would support disclosure requirements when AI is used to monitor or evaluate workers, investment in retraining and apprenticeship pathways, and labor standards that ensure productivity gains are shared with workers—not captured only by companies.

Third, keep California competitive. We should continue investing in research, startups, and responsible deployment, especially where AI can improve public services, healthcare, and climate resilience. The goal is not to choke off innovation, but to make sure innovation works for Californians instead of happening at their expense.

Statistically, violent crime rates in California is on the decline, but still, residents are not feeling safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in the state legislature in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

My role in the Legislature is to focus on both actual safety and the conditions that shape whether people feel safe in their daily lives. That means addressing crime, but also the breakdowns people see around them: untreated mental illness, addiction, visible disorder, unsafe transit, dark streets, reckless driving, and a lack of trust that government will respond.

I believe Californians need a public safety approach that is practical, not ideological. We should support law enforcement and first responders with the staffing, training, and tools they need, while also investing in the systems that prevent crises from escalating — mental health care, substance use treatment, homelessness prevention, victim services, and youth opportunity.

If someone is in crisis, the response should not always default to the same system. But if someone is repeatedly harming others, there must be accountability.

In the Legislature, I would focus on three things: funding behavioral health and treatment capacity so local communities can respond earlier; supporting safer streets, transit, and neighborhood infrastructure so people feel secure going about daily life; and strengthening coordination between state and local governments so resources actually reach the front lines.

People do not judge safety by one statistic. They judge it by whether they can walk home, wait for a bus, or take their child to school without fear. My job is to help make that everyday sense of safety real again.

What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I am a classically trained violinist who also fiddles and dabbles in mariachi music.

Orange County Register

News Details

Sara Hernandez, SD-26 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS